10°
Submitted by MattS 268d ago | review

Review: Batman: Arkham Origins | Digitally Downloaded

Digitally Downloaded writes: "Ultimately Batman: Arkham Origins is a blockbuster game. That means both good (it looks great and plays cleanly), and bad (it's completely superficial). To compare this origins story to Batman Begins is to show that the games industry still lags well behind the film industry in terms of providing rich experiences. But at least Joel Schumacher wasn't involved in the production of this game." (Batman: Arkham Origins, PC, PS3, PS4, Wii U, Xbox 360, Xbox One) 3.5/6

FreshRevenge  +   268d ago
For someone that hasn't played the other two games in the series, you shouldn't be one to pass judgement. Actually I stop reading after I read the first snip. You have no ideal what you are talking about. The game was really good.

I can see you base your judgement on the reviews of others. You Sir are a poor soul at that!
MattS  +   268d ago
I agree the game is good, which is why I gave it a good score. Lord I wish gamers would stop having a cry over 70% scores.

A game should stand on its own merits. If I have to have played the previous games to 'properly' enjoy this one then the developers did a terrible job. Other sequels manage to be enjoyable whether you're new to the series or not. So what's this game's excuse?
ZombieKiller  +   268d ago
This games excuse is that

1) the engine was too good for just one game
2) this was their first game, and its a AAA title they didn't want to screw it up
3) with a complex design in combat, predator, and other gameplay elements WHY change things? I played Arkham City for hours upon hours a day from release day till the DAY Origins came out, and I am STILL seeing new animations and such. For someone so damn used to this game, I wouldn't want them to change the formula at all really. Just add to it. Which is exactly what they did. If the formula was so similar to the first game, then why did this game get a 3.5 out of 6(?)

Not to mention you say this game should stand on it's own merits....what does Call of Duty do year after year that deserves it's scores then?
It DOES stand on its own merits, but you as a reviewer just don't see it. What about a city twice the size while retaining the graphics and no load times? What about the fast travel, the new enemy types, the crime in progress, the acting the story, and everything else? That doesn't deserve a good score? ...Not to mention if you haven't played the other two, you don't have anything to compare them to (so you wouldn't know what "merits" this game has vs. the other two). If this was my first Batman game, I would be freaking FLOORED by it in almost every way.
I can't take this review seriously.
MattS  +   268d ago
"what does Call of Duty do year after year that deserves it's scores then?"

Can you please point me to one of my reviews of Call of Duty? Good luck; I've never reviewed a CoD game. You do know that there is more than one critic out there, right? I don't speak for all the other critics in the world, and they don't speak for me.

"It DOES stand on its own merits, but you as a reviewer just don't see it."

And yet I gave it a good score. That would suggest that I do see that it is quality. You don't understand what "stands on its own merits" means, though, but I'll get to that in a second. Point is I'm just not going OMFG GAGAGAGAGA over it, and that's making the fanboys throw a tantrum.

"What about a city twice the size while retaining the graphics and no load times?"

You mean that completely barren and empty city with no people and stuff? What an impressive open world game!

"What about the fast travel, the new enemy types, the crime in progress, the acting the story, and everything else? That doesn't deserve a good score?"

70% is a good score. Based on this line of argument that you're taking here I suspect it's higher than the scores you get on your English tests.

"..Not to mention if you haven't played the other two, you don't have anything to compare them to (so you wouldn't know what "merits" this game has vs. the other two)."

Do you understand what "stand on its own merits" actually means? Evidently not. To explain it to you: it means to excel without being compared to anything else. Any good game, whether original IP or sequel, should stand on its own merits. People should not have to have played every other game in the series to "understand how good this latest one is."

"If this was my first Batman game, I would be freaking FLOORED by it in almost every way."

Good for you. Guess what? Other people in this world are entitled to hold different opinions to your own.

"I can't take this review seriously."

And I really don't care what you think.
#1.1.2 (Edited 268d ago ) | Agree(0) | Disagree(1) | Report
georgenancy  +   268d ago
review says 3.5/6 yet the reviewer's site only has 5 stars?click bait?
MattS  +   268d ago
Whoops. Honest mistake, actually. Sorry about that.
ZombieKiller  +   266d ago
Whoa! You sure it's the gamers throwing the tantrum there? You got pretty tough those last couple of lines. Thought I might have struck a nerve there.

Ok first off, I don't care about any of your other reviews COD or not. Especially after your butthurt reply to what I said....which wasn't an insult in any way but apparently warrents a reply as if I ran your dog over. I was simply stating WHY I can't take this review on this game seriously. I didn't say I can't take you seriously. Then again, after that reply I don't see who would. Not to worry though, I gave your site a bad review and will watch out for your name not to give you the hits. Just don't quit your day job.
Secondly, 3.5/6 is a 58%..yet I have poor english. Please...idiot, find something that actually hurts instead of the generic "I need more schooling" reply. By that way, that WAS AN INSULT since you can't tell the difference.
Yes, I DO understand what "standing on your own merits" means but do YOU know what those specific merits are if you haven't played the previous games? Furthermore, this game was designed to be a copy paste of the last one with added features. Those ADDED FEATURES are the merits.
As for the empty city, the game calls for a state of emergency in game which is why they don't have pedestrians, story-wise. It's the limitations of the hardware that prevent them from being there.
Since you have not played the last game, I wouldn't expect you to know this. Or anything about the series. I guess thats ok though, you're only reviewing the game, right? /s

Add comment

You need to be registered to add comments. Register here or login
Remember
New stories
10°

SWTOR Lowdown: Party On The PTS

1m ago - Joe from Gadgets And Khajiits brings you info on PTS patch 2.9! | PC
10°

EVE Online Has A New Executive Producer

2m ago - CCP Games has announced today that their sc-fi MMO game EVE Online has a new Executive Producer:... | PC
30°

Wooden Sen'SeY review (Wii U eShop) by Wii's World

34m ago - Wii's World reviews the recent eShop release "Wooden Sen'SeY" - an indie platformer with a Japane... | Wii U
30°

Activision unveils new Eon's Elite Skylanders figurines

1h ago - Fans of Activision's Skylanders series will soon have new limited-edition figurines with which to... | PC
Ad

Looking for a great Pokemon Community?

Now - Look no further. Join us at the BulbaGarden Forums, the best community for everything Pokemon | Promoted post
30°

Valiant Hearts: The Great War Review: More than a War Game | GamerTell

1h ago - From the review, "War is often glorified when it comes to the world of modern video games, but ne... | PC
Related content from friends